All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since the Defendant had been unaware of the intention to aid and abetting the Defendant to commit the phishing, the Defendant did not have any intention to aid and abetting the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles). (2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair (Sentencing). (b) The Defendant did not confirm at all despite the fact that there were many doubtful circumstances as to whether the Defendant was subject to loan examination; (c) there was no imminent circumstances that make it difficult for the Defendant to conduct an ordinary inquiry for the purpose of lending; (d) there was no characteristic similar to the victim of ordinary “loan phishing”; and (e) on April 1, 2020, the Defendant committed the crime on April 20, 2020, following the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the proposal for employment of the phishing employee; and (e) citing that the lower court committed the crime with the intention of aiding and abetting the Defendant by actively misunderstanding or aiding and abetting the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant.

A. The lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion on the same grounds as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, by giving a detailed statement on the Defendant’s

In addition to the circumstances presented by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant, when considering the fact that the defendant, on April 1, 2020, came to know of bank employees in relation to the suspension of payment, he was guilty and he deposited money into the defendant's account.